OpenJurist

53 F3d 342 James v. Bray

John Henry JAMES, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Donice Neal; Dr. BRAY; Colorado State Penitentiary,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-1040.

D. Colorado (D.C. No. 94-S-2396)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 8, 1995.

53 F.3d 342
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

1

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Plaintiff John Henry James, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.1983 action against defendants, the Colorado State Penitentiary, its warden, Donice Neal, and Dr. Bray, a doctor providing services to inmates at the penitentiary. Mr. James is currently in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections at the penitentiary.

3

He claims violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as a result of deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. He seeks damages, transfer to a different correctional facility, an investigation of alleged racism involving correctional facility employees, and a reevaluation of medical treatment.

4

The district court dismissed his claim as legally frivolous, under 28 U.S.C.1915(d). We AFFIRM, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court opinion.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470